9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1477X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Surat (for short 'the Tribunal') in ITA No. 86/SRT/2017 for the Assessment Year 2007-2008:- "(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT has justified partly allowing the appeal of the assessee and restricting the addition to 6% of the total bogus purchases against the addition made by the AO at the rate of 100% of bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 2,01,61,565/- ignoring the fact that these purchases are sham transactions fabricated through bogus paper concerns of Shri Gautam Jain Group entities which were engaged in providing accommodation entries? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Apex Court? (iv) Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT has justified in restricting the addition to 6% of the total bogus purchases even though the AO has made 100% addition of bogus transaction amounting to Rs. 2,01,61,565/-made by the Assessee with the entry provider not appreciating that non-genuineness of the expenditure booked was established by the information received from DIT(Inv), Mumbai and the Assessee was not able to discharge its onus to establish the genuineness of transaction before the AO?" 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of trading activities of diamonds and has filed return of income declaring total income at Rs. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejecting books of account of the assessee under section 145(3) of the Act had given a finding that assessee is a commission agent and restricted the addition to 0.50% being estimated commission earned on the impugned purchases. Following the said decision, the addition in the case was restricted to Rs. 1,00,808/- as suppressed commission income. 7. Being aggrieved, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 21.02.2024, partly allowed the appeal of the Revenue and restricted the disallowance at 6% of the amount of the unexplained purchases. 8. At the outset, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani for the Appellant-Revenue submitted that the Tribunal has relied upon the Judgm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee was merely a commission agent and earned commission on such sale and purchase. We find that neither any detail on TDS of alleged commission was furnished nor any substantive evidence in the form of confirmation of parties or agreement/agency agreement was placed on record. We find that the Id. CIT(A) recorded that a profit element in similar bogus purchases can only be brought to tax. Despite the fact that the Id. CIT(A) restricted the addition to 0.50% without referring any material evidence available on record. We find that this combination in number of decisions wherein the purchases are shown from Gautam Jain, Bhanwarlal Jain or Rajendra Jain and Company, who were proved entry provider, similar addition was either restricted or enhan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
